Town and Country Parks

HC Deb 02 March 2000 vol 345 cc87-120WH

[Relevant documents: Twentieth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1998–1999 HC 477 and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4550.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I am glad that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Select Committee report "Town and Country Parks". However, I express a fear shared by many hon. Members that debating Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall can be rather like the Committee talking to the Committee. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see present the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Opposition spokesman, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes).

I begin by expressing my thanks to all who helped prepare the report, particularly our specialist advisers, Alan Barber and David Lambert, the members of the Committee and the Committee staff, who all worked so hard. I also thank all those who sent in written evidence or who gave oral evidence and those who made our visit to Greater Manchester so informative.

The report starts with a quotation: The measure of any great civilisation is its cities and a measure of a city's greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and squares. Those words of John Ruskin sum up the emphasis that the Committee wanted to put on the place of parks in our great cities. No stronger criticism can be made of the last 20 years of the 20th century than the neglect, public vandalism and destruction that happened in so many of our parks. Nothing shows more the difference between private affluence and municipal decay than that during those 20 years so many people spent their time cultivating their own garden plots while, just around the corner, so many of our parks died.

The cover of the report highlights that tragedy. In some ways, it may not have worked as well as we expected. We hoped that it would be distributed with half the covers put on inside out. We hoped that half the copies would show the pictures of neglect and that the other half would show the pictures of success. I can see you puzzling over this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you take the cover off—it is like a dust jacket—you will see the two sets of pictures. I am not sure about the parliamentary conventions on visual aids. The pictures on the inside of the cover show the tragic pictures of what has happened in so many of our parks—neglected monuments, leaking water features, unkempt grounds that have suffered vandalism, crime and graffiti, unused or unusable playgrounds and ruined bowling greens. Some local authorities decided to go for wilderness areas rather than continuing to tend the gardens, the idea being that a little wildness in a park is attractive. It could be, but maintaining that wilderness to make a happy place to visit is often more difficult than keeping flowerbeds neat and tended.

We listed all the ways in which so many of our parks suffered during those 20 years. Although so many parks suffered so much, the cover contrasts that depressing picture with pictures of people going to parks and thoroughly enjoying themselves. The activity is free and almost everyone can participate in it—permission is not necessary and people need not worry whether they are wearing the right clothes. Anyone can enjoy healthy recreation, or just look at the attractive flowers. There are play areas for children, and opportunities for people to walk their dogs, to develop community activities and the community spirit and for education. Paragraphs 32 to 56 of the report set out the vast number of opportunities that people have to enjoy themselves in our parks.

There is a contrast between parks that are suffering neglect and decay and those that are still wonderfully attractive. The Committee was sad to find that some of the most attractive parks were in the more affluent places and some of the least attractive and most rundown were in the poorest and most deprived parts of towns. Those with the biggest houses, most access to motor cars and the best spaces for private gardens had some of the best public parks. People living in high-rise flats or terraced houses, with no opportunity to have a garden, had some of the most deprived parks. The opposite should apply.

The decline of the municipal park can be attributed to many factors, but about 10 years ago a dedicated band of people decided that they had to stop the decline and to regenerate parks. They had to find the money and the enthusiasm to protect the parks that gave so much pleasure in the past and could give so much pleasure now. I pay tribute to all those who campaigned, and to the green flag scheme to give awards to especially attractive parks.

That is a brief description of the state of parks and campaigning activity; I want now to turn to problems. The first problem that we highlighted was that many local authorities did not know how much parkland they had. That seems surprising—I was amazed during the inquiry that, in so many cases, we could not find that out. The question had almost crept up on authorities. For much of the 20-year period in which buildings were being pulled down, bits of land were landscaped—when a new road scheme has developed, the extra bit of land was often grassed over and one or two litter bins were put in and cotoneasters and berberis were planted. Litter would blow across the landscaped area into the so-called flowerbeds. That land cost money to look after as it was added to the parks and recreations department's lot.

In a city such as Manchester, parks did not diminish. During those 20 years, the city kept its parkland and often added to it. However, its population dropped dramatically by a third during the period. The amount of parkland per person increased substantially, so maintaining it became a greater burden. I should pay tribute to the work that Manchester has done with some of its parks. The cost of maintaining them all is formidable.

Manchester had fine historic parks such as Philips park and Queens park. There should be more recognition of a national duty to look after parkland, especially if it is of historic value. The duty should not rest only with the city's council tax payers.

On the issue of town versus country, we wanted the title for the inquiry to be "Town and Country Parks". We thought that town parks might be declining because the emphasis had switched to new country parks, but we found no evidence of that. Country parks are in better heart than urban parks but, on the whole, there is no conflict. However, there was a small concern that one or two country parks were starting to decline.

There was much argument about how far compulsory competitive tendering could be blamed for the decline of parks. The Select Committee was clear that it wanted to place the blame not on CCT, but on the process of CCT. A battle occurred between the Government, who wanted to push the process forward, and local authorities, which did not want to follow it. The outcome was disastrous for parks. I hope that, in replacing the compulsory competitive tendering regime with best value, we will start the process to restore parks, but I have not been encouraged by best value so far. There is a fair amount of waffle, but not much specific factual content.

Paragraph 165 of the reports states: In implementing best value, we expect all local authorities to have a Master Plan for parks and greenspace and to ensure that local people, as well as members of the Council, have easy access to a regularly updated version of it. Local authorities should use the Master Plan to show how their parks address the many cross-cutting issues which both Government and the Local Government Association are promoting such as sustainable development, life long learning, crime and disorder and social exclusion. The public— this is the key point— should also have easy access to detailed plans for each park or small group of greenspaces and know what budget is allocated to each one. It also stipulates that nationally set target indicators should be taken into account. I hope that they are in place, but I fear that they are disappearing under the best value regime. We need some clarity so that my constituents can see the state of their park, examine the local authority's plan for it and decide where it is going wrong. That would do a great deal to enhance democracy. I hope that the Minister will be able to say in detail how best value will work for parks.

Although there is disappointment about how compulsory competitive tendering has been applied to parks and some concern about best value, parks have been let down in other ways. English Heritage has done a good job to list historic public buildings that need to be looked after, but its record on stepping in and protecting parks is lamentable. As the Select Committee will consider that issue shortly, I shall say no more on it.

It was heartening to learn that, in many parks, people have grouped together to form friends of the park. They should be given every encouragement, not just so that they can put together a lottery application, but so that they can campaign to look after their park. The groups could also develop voluntary activities. That is a personal view; it is not expressed in the Select Committee's report. An increasing number of people who can best be described as the young elderly, have the opportunity to put in some form of community service and they should be encouraged to help look after parks. I hope that the Government will consider ways of making it easier for people to do that, and possible to have flowers in flowerbeds in parks that have been grassed over. Much of the effort involved in that task is in planting the flowers, so if someone could provide the money for seeds and tools, some voluntary effort could be made. I am not suggesting that voluntary effort should take the place of the work of councils, but that would be one way to regenerate the attractiveness of our parks.

I pay tribute to the fact that heritage lottery money has produced an improvement in some parks, but of the 5,000 municipal parks recognised as significant, only 93 have received money so far. That is a very small number. It is exciting to see what has been done in those parks and that money was well spent. However, I emphasise that it is not just a question of carrying out capital works in parks; it is also necessary to look after them. I hope that the new opportunities fund will be able to offer a little more money for work in parks.

I now turn to one of the central issues highlighted in the report: the lack of a champion for the urban park. A considerable amount of evidence suggests that we need someone to campaign for the urban park, as the Countryside Agency has campaigned for country parks. We need an urban parks and green space agency. When I looked at the Government's response to the report, I was particularly disappointed that the Government could not see any way of supporting that idea. We need a national body to campaign for the urban park and ensure that the good practice that operates in some parks is spread throughout the country. Such a body could tackle the problems of training because, as parks have declined, the number of trained professionals who know how to look after and manage them has also declined.

Parks need more money. The Minister should lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer because parks could be one of the recipients of money from green taxes. The whole intention of a green tax is to change people's behaviour, so it should be a temporary source of money. If some of that money could be used to regenerate parks, they could be restored to their previous standards.

Finally, the Government should see the urban park as an engine for urban regeneration. The Government have the opportunity to consider the matter in the urban White Paper, in which there should be no timidity. The White Paper should be a bold declaration of the Government's aspirations for the next five to 10 years. I fear that the Department is waiting to see how much money it can get from the Chancellor in the present spending round before it curtails its ambitions to the amount of money available. The urban White Paper should set out the Government's plans for urban regeneration and, if we cannot have all the money at the start, it should set out a timetable for obtaining that money, rather than trimming its sails to the amount of money that is available over the next three years. I plead that the park should be at the centre of that ambition. New York, Paris, Barcelona, Seattle and other cities have shown that whole areas can be lifted by starting regeneration with parks.

If we want to make our cities attractive places, we should bear it in mind that their greatness will be measured in the quality of their parks. I return to the John Ruskin quotation: The measure of any great civilisation is its cities and a measure of a city's greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces and squares. The Select Committee report points the way for the Government to use our parks as a way of regenerating our big cities and of giving a great deal of pleasure to the large numbers of people who still go out to enjoy them.

2.50 pm

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East)

I welcome the Select Committee report on town and country parks. Although I believe that the Committee might have been carried away by its own zeal in making some of its more bureaucratic recommendations, a report that draws attention to the value of our parks and the threats to them is long overdue. There is no doubt that, unless our parks are better protected, they will continue to be eroded, such is the pressure of development. However, I note in the Committee's recommendations that it sees no point in legislating to give statutory protection for parks.

I should like to use this debate to describe what is happening to the five historic parks in the borough of Bournemouth, which contribute so much to the attractions of our resort and which are the subject of protective legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) wishes to be associated fully with my remarks. Three of Bournemouth's five parks are located in his constituency, although King's park, the park currently under most threat, lies in mine.

Bournemouth's five parks have long been subject, Sir Alan—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making his debut in Westminster Hall, but I remind him that the correct form of address for me is Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Atkinson

Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for putting me right.

Bournemouth's five parks have long been subject to the protection of local Acts. In 1984, the local authority sought Parliament's approval for the consolidation of various local powers into what became the Bournemouth Borough Council Act 1985. Section 28 of the Act—another section 28—relates to the five parks and confirms the council's principal obligations as their trustee. Those obligations are to keep the parks unbuilt on and to preserve their natural aspect and state. There is no doubt, that without the foresight of the councillors who petitioned Parliament for the special protection provided by the Act, many of the five parks would now have been built on, for example, for the proposed residential development in Meyrick park in 1985 or the proposed road scheme through Redhill common in 1998. Both sites are situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West.

Last year saw the publication of two major schemes that would have had a major impact on King's park in my constituency. Unlike most other parks in Bournemouth, King's park provides a wide range of organised sports and recreational facilities in addition to its open space. By far the largest enterprise is the Dean Court football ground, the home of AFC Bournemouth, or the Cherries, who are now halfway up the second division. They defeated their Blackpool rivals last weekend by two goals to one. Such was the cash crisis faced by the club several years ago, I had to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury for a stay of execution. Since then, the club has been revitalised under the inspiring leadership of its chairman, Trevor Watkins, who rescued professional soccer for the town with his pioneering, community-based approach, inspired by American clubs. Despite the understandable reservations of my constituents in the neighbourhood, Bournemouth borough council has approved a new £9 million all-seater stadium, which will involve rotating the current ground by 90 degrees. Restrictive covenants have been lifted on public land needed for the scheme. The Football Trust has pledged £3 million and Bournemouth council has approved a £1 million loan. I hope that the project will be a great success for the club and I am pleased to support it.

Unfortunately, the council is minded to allow another development in King's park which undoubtedly goes against the spirit of the 1985 Act and which the Charity Commissioners may yet determine to be illegal—as I believe it to be. That is the leasing of part of the public open space in King's park to a private developer for a commercially operated ice rink as a regional venue for competition ice skating. That building would have spectator seating and cover 100,000 sq ft. The proposal seems to be outside section 28 of the Act and consequently a serious breach of trusteeship duties by the councill. It is certainly contrary to the principal obligation that section 28 imposes on the council: to keep the five parks from being built on.

Thanks to the tireless dedication of one councillor in particular and several constituents, the matter has been drawn to the attention of the Treasury Solicitor, who is rightly concerned. It continues to be the subject of negotiation between the council and the Charity Commissioners. I hope that the council will be told that it cannot proceed and that a commercially operated ice stadium—which I accept would enhance our town as a resort should be developed on a brownfield site.

It is in response to the Select Committee's report that I have used the Bournemouth experience to emphasise that legislation has its uses in helping to protect urban parks from development, even when the local authority concerned is not abiding by the relevant Act.

Another threat to urban parks such as ours in Bournemouth is not mentioned in the report, but it should be. It comes from their invasion almost every summer by travellers. Last summer, they invaded King's park, Redhill common, Millham Meads and Iford playing fields in our borough. Two weeks ago, a group of them left King's park after occupying its paying car park for six weeks. The experience of people living in the neighbourhood is the same every time. Crime and vandalism rise. Garden sheds and garages are broken into. Pets disappear. Human excrement is left. When, eventually, the council obtains a court order to remove the invaders, a great deal of rubbish is left behind to be cleared up at the council tax payer's expense. I applauded the Home Secretary last year when he described such travellers as crooks who thought that they had a licence to commit crime and act unlawfully, and said that it was time to end sentimentality about them as travellers. He certainly did not deserve to be reported to the Commission for Racial Equality for his comments. He was speaking the truth.

Bournemouth's parks are of course not the only ones that are regularly invaded and there have been questions and Adjournment debates on this national problem. I hope that all local authorities that are as frequently affected as mine will, perhaps through the Local Government Association, press the Government for new powers to enable them immediately, without having to obtain a county court order, to obtain possession of any council-owned land in the occupation of caravan-dwellers, travellers and gypsies. Better still would be the power to have licences taken away from those licensed to drive the vehicles. I am surprised that that threat to our parks was not considered by the Select Committee in preparing its otherwise worthy report.

2.58 pm

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)

I welcome the debate on parks and hope that it and the Select Committee report, rather like the report on allotments, will focus continuing attention on something valued by many people that for a long time was ignored and neglected by those with responsibility.

Parks are recognised as an important public asset. Access to green space and parkland is especially important in urban areas. The importance and value of parks have long been recognised for recreation, health, community development and education, especially in studying biodiversity and wildlife, but increased emphasis has been given recently to the value of parks in urban regeneration. The provision of green space and parkland has been recognised belatedly as an important part of urban design and land-use planning. I was pleased that the importance of providing parks in the way in which communities want them, as part of urban design and regeneration, was recognised in the Rogers report on urban renaissance.

Parks can be made available in several ways—in small projects and larger ones. Sub-regional projects, such as the Mersey forest scheme, are important in providing parkland in urban areas. That scheme is one of 12 national community forest projects, in which local authorities join the public and private sectors to consider the provision of recreational space, the development of environmentally friendly land and the encouragement of wildlife and biodiversity across a large area. The aim of the Mersey forest project is to produce a high-quality environment in and around towns and cities. Such projects need to be supported by a wide variety of funding institutions, and their local relevance to urban areas, including town centres, must be recognised.

Parks and green fields are also important in localised areas and one-off schemes. Particular emphasis should be put on retaining local playing fields, which often provide opportunities for local recreation in highly urbanised areas. I welcome the Government's recent moves to support the retention of playing fields, going against the previous Government's policy of encouraging local authorities to sell off playing fields.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

I have leapt to my feet because the hon. Lady is repeating the Government's oft-quoted mantra that we sold off playing fields and this Government have not done so. Is she not aware of the statistics that show that the rate of sports field sell-off is vastly greater now than under the previous Government? The Ministry of Defence is selling two in my constitutency.

Mrs. Ellman

I recognise that the previous Government advocated selling off playing fields and that this Government are doing the opposite.

Parks and green space have been, and still are, extremely important in the inner-city constituency that I represent. Those spaces are provided in various ways. The large areas include the magnificent Princes park, which was designed by Paxton in 1840 to enhance the potential of the property being developed then and which greatly benefits local people now; and Sefton park, which was built in 1872 by the local authority on 200 acres after an international design competition. There are local spaces, such as Greenbank park, and magnificent Georgian squares, such as the Faulkner, Abercromby and St. George squares, which were built originally to provide communal facilities for the surrounding high-quality terraces. There are parks on brownfield sites, such as Everton park, and inner-city projects, such as the town centre projects run by the KIND organisation, which finds green space and opportunities for ecological education in the middle of the city.

All those parks and green spaces are much valued by people in inner-city Liverpool, but it is clear that much work needs to be done in them. For example, there is a great deal of acitvity in much-loved Sefton park, financed by European regional development funds. The park is also awaiting lottery funding. Rangers in that park do an excellent job but, ironically, a conflict has arisen as heritage lottery funding designated to restore part of the park to how it was in another era requires trees to be destroyed. I hope that that conflict will be resolved.

The friends of Sefton park palm house have done a magnificent job in bringing together funding from the local authority, Europe, English Heritage, heritage lottery and private sources to restore the palm house for public benefit.

During the Select Committee investigation, it became clear that there were several reasons for the decline of parks and green spaces in urban areas in the past 20 years. Cuts imposed by central Government on local authorities had taken a toll which, with compulsory competitive tendering, led to a reduction in both maintenance standards and, indirectly, horticultural skills. Responsibility for and an overview of the importance of parks and green spaces were lacking. It is clear that progress is now being made and that changed uses of parks are being defined when appropriate.

There is new interest in local authority funding for parks. However, local authorities must have access to funding if that is to be a realistic prospect. Friends' groups are developing to support parks, although how much responsibility they can be expected to take in the long term is not certain. Long-term funding from joint sources is especially significant, and European funding, lottery funding and heritage funding are all important. However, examining how funding and support can be maintained over time and brought together for a single purpose is equally important.

Liverpool is now regenerating. Liverpool Vision, the new company set up by the regional development agency, English Partnerships, Liverpool city council and the private sector, is now assembling plans for redesigning Liverpool city centre which include ideas for building green spaces and parks into the urban environment. Those proposals are being consulted on.

There are hopeful moves to support the future of urban parks, such as regional and local plans for culture and tourism that examine the value of parks as cultural and economic assets. The local authorities' duty to be responsible for the social, environmental and economic well-being of their area is, potentially, very promising.

I hope that those combined forces will help to achieve recognition of the importance of parks and green spaces in recreation, health, pleasure, education and the design of the urban fabric. The report and our debate will be worth while if they contribute to achieving that.

3.8 pm

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

First, I apologise that I may need to leave before the Minister's winding-up speech if our debate goes its full length.

The report is excellent. It is detailed and comprehensive and I agree with almost all of its key recommendations. More information, however, is needed on the key recommendation on the role of the agency. My informal soundings suggest that the agency should be supported in spreading best practice and collating information about parks. I do not support the idea that it should direct or dictate what happens locally, but I am sure that the Committee is not advocating that.

I should like to focus on a limited number of areas in the report. Other hon. Members have already touched on the importance of identifying how many parks there are in the country so that we can monitor them and work towards improving their condition. I should like to touch first on the safety and security aspect, then on friends of parks and the funding issue, to which other hon. Members have already referred, and finally on the Government's response to the Select Committee report.

There is no doubt that the major deterrent to park use concerns safety and security. I can think of a number of factors in my constituency, which I am sure will apply across the country. Drinking in parks by groups of youths, for instance, is clearly a deterrent to park users. I can think of other examples where parks, because they are open spaces where people can come and go easily, have been used to bombard passing buses with bricks or stones, thereby forcing bus companies to reduce bus routes or take a bus off entirely. But there are solutions. Closed circuit television is an obvious, albeit costly, solution, with heavy revenue implications for staffing the CCTV cameras or the monitors so that they are used effectively. Much more work can be done on parks constabularies. Three London boroughs have parks constabularies and that should be promoted.

Another possible and controversial solution is to push for more cycling in parks. I wish that there were a more rational approach to cycling. It seems to generate more heat and less light than any other matter. I occasionally cycle with my daughter, who is two and a half years old. She is secured in a cycle seat and wears a helmet. Recently, when I was cycling in a local park, I overheard people muttering about these cyclists cycling through the park, yet I was cycling past them at a pace that was slower than had I been on foot. There is an irrational concern about letting cyclists use parks. Having more people in parks, whether pedestrians or cyclists is one way of addressing concerns about safety. The more people there are, the safer people feel.

Friends of parks are an excellent initiative. I am sure that all hon. Members will have participated in events in their constituencies organised by such bodies as friends of Mellows park and friends of Oaks park in my constituency. One of the concerns identified by the Select Committee was that some friends were feeling put upon and were being asked to take on too much responsibility. That is not the case where I am. They feel comfortable with their responsibilities and, if anything, would like to take on additional responsibilities rather than cut back on them. One area of concern that should be looked at is that it is the young elderly who are involved in these organisations, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out. Perhaps we should promote young friends of parks to get young people and children involved in helping to run their parks.

As we have already heard from two hon. Members, funding is central to their concerns. It is the single biggest issue for all local authorities. All hon. Members know that what slips when budgets are tight are the so-called soft cuts—the things that allegedly do not hurt anyone. The maintenance of parks may be affected. Fewer flowers and shrubs may be planted and there may be more grass because that is easier and less costly to maintain. Paths and fences may not be repaired as quickly as in the past. It is in that respect that the Government's response is weakest; they sing the praises of parks but fail to take account of the cost implications, which can be heavy. In their response, the Government state that they have abolished crude, universal capping, and perhaps that is true. What is certainly true is that a clawback operates. The further a council's spending deviates from what is considered to be appropriate, the harsher is the clawback.

The Government do not agree that less local authority funding should be provided by Government grants. That is one way of saying that they do not agree that more funds should be raised locally. Why should not more funds be raised locally? That is something that the Select Committee advocated when considering other reports. What better way is there of re-establishing the link that seems to have been broken between our constituents, the local authority and their voting habits in council elections? If that link were restored, there would be a higher turnout at local elections and authorities would have more flexibility to take decisions about their priorities, or what their electors want to be their priorities.

The Government's response offers no help in respect of the Select Committee's request that they should help local authorities to find ways to reverse cuts in park maintenance. The Government were silent on the funding issue, but they made some commitments. I hope that the Minister will provide more details of those commitments and perhaps set out a time scale.

When will the parks database, which is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Government's response, be established and able to take research inquiries? In paragraph 26, which relates to trusts and friends organisations, the Government state that they will consider further the issues raised in conjunction with the LGA and others. What are the terms of reference for the review? When will the report be published? When will we know what the Government's deliberations have produced?

The Minister has already been asked whether she will be talking to the Chancellor about funding. If he says that the country cannot afford it, will she point out that he is about to give away £2.5 billion in tax cuts? Perhaps the Minister will press him on the matter.

All hon. Members can agree on the subject of town and country parks. As the Government's response states, well-maintained parks and open spaces are essential to improve the quality of living and working environments. Saying that those things are essential will not improve the parks, but dissemination of best practice and increased resources will.

3.18 pm

Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central)

As someone who joined the Environment Sub-Committee relatively recently, I especially welcome the report. In highlighting the importance of parks as green lungs and oases for our cities, the report has done a good job, if a depressing one, in also highlighting the decline in the state of some parks in recent years, something that should worry all hon. Members. I congratulate the Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee on the cover of the report, to which he referred in his opening remarks. To anyone who does not want to delve into the words of the report, the pictures on the back and front tell the story. We have already heard various reasons for the decline, such as the natural ravages of time, inadequate capital for repairs and improvement, lack of maintenance, other demands on local government, which is an important contributory factor, and the effect of compulsory competitive tendering—a lesson that I hope has been learnt in relation to best value.

I want to talk specifically about parks in our great cities. Leeds is a city of contrasts. It has its own north-south divide in terms of prosperity. It also has a wide variety of green open spaces. Anyone who has been to Roundhay park or Temple Newsom is able to attest to that. Cross Flatts park in Beeston in my constituency epitomises, in many ways, the problems that we are discussing. It is a monument to Victorian vision. A substantial recreation space, it lies between two communities, and people talk about houses as being either above or below the park. To those who live to the east of Cross Flatts park in tightly packed, back-to-back houses with no gardens, it is an important recreation space.

The park is vital to the community, but over the years it has suffered from under-investment. All the issues raised in the report can be used in respect of the park: the railings disappeared a long time ago, there are no permanent park staff and people are sometimes afraid to walk across the park at night. The Public Accounts Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Audit Commission performance indicators, and it would be nice if a performance indicator could be used to measure the problems in public open spaces.

The good news is that help is now at hand. Partly because of lottery funding and the fourth round of the single regeneration budget funding, there is an opportunity to make a difference. I congratulate the city council on its approach to the park. It has used a consultation technique, "planning for real", with which some hon. Members may be familiar. It has worked successfully in the community of Beeston and Holbeck. It involves setting out a large-scale map of the area and inviting people to put little flags on the map setting out what is needed in certain areas, such as new railings or better lighting. People being involved in the planning of their areas makes a great difference because ownership is crucial to sustaining and developing an interest in our parks and open spaces.

I am pleased to tell the Chamber that new fencing is to be put around Cross Flatts park so that joyriders who, for some strange reason, like to bring their cars into the park and burn them out, can no longer do so. A nice old building, known locally as the Watsonia, is being refurbished so that community groups and young people can use it. Vandalised tennis courts that have been neglected over the years symbolise more than anything else the decline of our public open spaces. Two such courts are to be renovated so that they can be used and the other six will be turned into a multi-purpose hard play area, which is a wonderfully flexible phrase to describe the fashion activity of the moment, whether it be football, roller-blading, skateboard or basketball.

A different example of the community approach is the millennium green in Woodhouse. The local community took the initiative in identifying an embankment that was covered with rubbish, neglected and overgrown. It received lottery funding to turn it into a small park and recreational space, and work has already begun. It is an absolutely wonderful project, and the local community is making it happen. It is working with Leeds Groundwork. As the millennium green is created, there will be a training programme, which will give unemployed young people the opportunity to learn more about horticulture and land management. I have no doubt that, at the end of that process, the sense of ownership and the pride in the millennium green will be all the greater because the community itself created it. Another example is St. Matthew's community garden in Holbeck, where an old graveyard is being turned into an open space.

Last autumn, I visted the Meanwood Valley urban farm in my constituency to collect acorns. It is a wonderful green corridor of animal husbandry, horticulture and open space. I was taking part in the constituency oaks project. Growing a tree from seed puts us all in our place: I have grown several oak trees from seed and know that the trees will be here long after all of us have disappeared into the dust of time. It, too, engenders a sense of ownership. One feels very strongly about a tree that one has planted and grown from a seed, and one has a unique bond with it. One of the problems in our parks is vandalism. How often have we seen a new tree snapped off a few days after it is planted? I should like to think that if we had planted a tree and seen somebody snap it off, we might be courageous enough to go up to that person and say "Excuse me, do you know that I planted that tree?" I suspect that I know what the answer would be, but I hope that the person would say, "I am very sorry, I didn't realise that it was your tree." If one thinks about it, all the trees in our parks are ours and we must develop a greater sense of ownership.

As hon. Members may gather, I am rather keen on trees. One of the other distinguishing features of Leeds is the contrast between north and south in terms of the number of trees. Trees are everywhere in the north-west, but south of the River Aire, and especially in south Leeds, which I have the honour of representing, there are not that many of them. Trees act as a buffer against noise and they soak up CO2, as we know. Even in the ordinary urban environment, trees soften the landscape and provide beauty and the opportunity for contemplation. Trees within a city create a park on their own, and I am keen that we should have many more in our city. I never thought that I would say this at the time, but as a youngster I used to be intimidated by the London county council park keepers in Holland park. Even if one was climbing a tree with a view to mild enjoyment—I never tried to damage trees—they intervened forcefully. The park keeper, who was the expression of our sense of community ownership and responsiblity for trees, is a great loss.

My final point concerns the future of parks in cities. Where are new parks going to come from? The Victorian Society made an important point in the evidence that it submitted to the Select Committee. It stated: Public parks did not come into existence by chance, or simply survive as accidentally undeveloped ground. They were deliberately created. As our cities develop and change, we need to think about where new parks will come from.

Mr. Bennett

It is perhaps unfortunate that my hon. Friend was not a member of the Committee when we considered evidence relating to the new Hulme development in the city of Manchester and the creation of a new park there. If my hon. Friend goes and looks, he will see a well-loved park whose creation was influenced by local people. The cover of the Select Committee report has a picture of youngsters driving up the wall and thoroughly enjoying themselves in that park.

Mr. Benn

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to having that opportunity. When the Committee visits Leeds in the near future, my hon. Friend will have a chance to see the millennium square, one of the new projects being developed there.

I believe that civic vision and leadership still have an important role to play, as they did in the 19th century. The millennium square is to be the middle of the town centre and will be the first new square in the city for 60 years. It will be a new focal point with trees, a fountain, cafés and flowers and it will be capable of use for open-air concerts and other events. In a sense, it will be a bridge I am not quite sure whether a square can be a bridge—between the report and the inquiry currently being undertaken in connection with the urban White Paper. The project will happen because it has been planned for. The centre of Leeds is a hive of activity and development, which is a sign of its great economic success. Two large developments are being planned, at Clarence dock and Tetley's wharf, and they will add greatly to the city's regeneration. However, as I have said to the planners and developers, we should not concrete over every square inch of the land. We need green space so that, if we are successful in bringing people back to the city to live, their children will have somewhere to play.

People will be drawn to live in the city by the exitement and bustle, and the fact that it is a thriving place, but they also need opportunities for tranquillity and contemplation. The parks—the green lungs and oases—provide us with the opportunity for that.

3.30 pm

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

It is a pleasing and daunting experience to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) who transported this mundane Chamber into something better with his lyrical description of the parks in Leeds and his historical vision of oaks. It is interesting to speak after him because the Benn dynasty played a significant part in ending the hereditary principle in the House of Lords. He appears to have inherited the best instincts of the long Benn dynasty in the House of Commons and is, perhaps, a walking endorsement of all that is good about the hereditary principle. We welcome him to the Select Committee and look forward to his contributions.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) who led the inquiry. I was going to say that he has moved on to better things, although I am not sure that a job in the Conservative Whips Office is better. Still, he has moved on and cannot be here today.

We have had a difficult week, especially with the all-night sitting, but two pleasant experiences have made my life slightly better. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to be invited to lunch in the Carlton club, and today I went to the Savoy hotel for the Automobile Association's awards lunch. Both occasions gave me the opportunity to walk across parks—Green park to the Carlton club and along the embankment to the Savoy—which gave me a chance to think about the reports. I was struck by the fact that both Green park and Victoria embankment—I apologise to the Royal Parks Agency and others who will write to me tomorrow to tell me that I am wrong—are living examples of what parks should not be. It is difficult to walk along Victoria embankment; it needs to be reorganised to make it pedestrian accessible. Many of the plants are overgrown; the section in front of the Ministry of Defence is an empty patch of green grass, and rather low-quality grass at that. Victoria embankment is one of the finest park sites in London, and we should be maximising the benefits that we get from it.

That experience, although pleasant, highlighted the problems that the report tries to address. Most of our town parks were first planted or donated 100 or 200 years ago. They were quite well maintained for a long time, but for a large part of the last century—certainly since the second world war—most of our town and country parks have been in gradual gentle decline. It is timely that we are considering what can be done to put them right.

Despite the Government's complexion, it is true that we are enjoying relative economic prosperity, thanks, of course, to the golden legacy that they inherited three years ago. It is at such times that we can consider what to do about heritage, history and parks, so that we can pass them on to people who may be less fortunate economically. I welcome the report, even though I was not able to take as active a part as I would have liked in the study that preceded it.

Our 250 country parks attract a not insignificant 57 million visits a year. Five thousand of our 30,000 parks, including town parks, are of national or local heritage merit. One hundred million park visits are made each year in London. Parks are a huge national asset and they improve the life of the people, and it is right that we should consider what can be done with them.

Why do we want parks, and what is their purpose? Hon. Members have referred to a variety of purposes, but they have skipped over some. Until the second world war, a large part of our population lived in the countryside and had plenty of experience of nature and wildlife. Our way of life is increasingly urban or suburban. Parks are more important than ever in terms of contact with nature and wildlife. There are more red foxes in London than in my North Wiltshire constituency. Red foxes, badgers and deer are plentiful in London.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

That is because we have not hunted them.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is because we have not hunted them. Red foxes are knocked down by cars in London or are covered with mange and are suffering from unspeakable diseases because their central London population is grossly large. We like to keep it under control in Wiltshire through that activity.

Providing contact with nature and wildlife is an extraordinarily important role for parks. That is true not only in London but in Chippenham, which is in the centre of the countryside. People in Chippenham use John Coles park, which was donated in the last century to the town by a Conservative mayor, as their main contact with fresh air, the countryside and plants. It is extremely important, especially for people with limited mobility. Disabled people probably enjoy our parks more than anyone else.

Never one to shy away from controversy, I might go further and say that making our parks attractive places to go and use as I have described is vastly more important than opening up acres of countryside, as is proposed in the right to roam Bill shortly to be put before Parliament. Even people in places such as Chippenham like to walk for about a mile in a circular route from their house, as they can through John Coles park. Unless they are radical and extreme ramblers—a few are around—they do not want access across the beautiful countryside surrounding the town. The right to roam addresses a need that is not there; it is a licence to trespass rather than a benefit to people.

We seem determined to concrete over our nation; the more green areas and biodiversity we can have in our parks, the better. In its evidence, Bristol city council used the good metaphor of parks as the lungs of the city. It said that parks contribute to the ecological health of the city. That might seem paradoxical, but it is important to think in that way.

I was less convinced by what the report refers to as "biophilia", which links environmental quality to social behaviour. It suggests that close contact with nature, on a regular or casual basis reduces stress, anxiety and aggression. I am sure that that is right, but not about the neologism "biophillia". If the removal of my stress this week by a stroll across Green park was "biophilia", I am glad that I enjoyed it.

Hon. Members have referred to the community spirit and civic pride that comes from the use of parks. The Wootton Bassett in bloom competition, in which I had the honour to be a judge and to present a prize last year, meant that people worked hard in their gardens and parks, but developed a keen interest in each other's as well. That engendered civic pride.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) contrasted what she saw as a sharp reduction in sports facilities under the previous Government with an increase under the present Government. That is not true. Sport England has produced figures to demonstrate that the sale of sports pitches under the present Government has been catastrophic, and faster in percentage terms than under the previous Government. Leaving that aside, all sensible Members of Parliament would agree that we should find ways to preserve and increase the number of sports pitches. About 500 children currently play football in Chippenham on a Saturday on a waterlogged pitch. No amount of lobbying of the Liberal Democrat-controlled district council will persuade it to provide a worthwhile sports pitch, even though the Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council is happy to provide the land. Perhaps a copy of today's Hansard will spur the council on.

A more worrying problem surrounds a large area of land in Corsham in my constituency, which the Ministry of Defence is selling to developers to build 590 houses. That is a controversial decision, especially because in the centre of the land are a large sports field, changing rooms and car parking. The MOD has in the past allowed the children of Corsham to use it, which is sensible. One can imagine the horror of Corsham people when they were told, a year ago, that the whole sports pitch would be built on, because the MOD wanted to maximise the return on the sale of the ground. After much pressure from councillors and from me, the MOD has agreed to keep the sports pitch and the cinder running track around it, but it is none the less continuing with the plan to build on all the associated land, including the children's sports pitches and play area, the car park and changing rooms. They will all be bulldozed in favour of houses because it is said that the Ministry of Defence needs the money in the post-strategic defence review era.

I have written to Ministers about this matter. Government hypocrisy is highlighted when they claim to believe in the value of children's play areas but decided to build houses on the Corsham sports pitch because they do not have enough money for the Army's rifles. If the Government want to be seen as sports pitch-friendly, I challenge them to announce immediately that they have rethought the question of selling the sports pitches in Corsham. Sport is an important aspect of our parks.

Several hon. Members have commented on the decline of our parks. They are dreary and covered in litter. They are overgrown, with poor plants and rusty railings. They attract vandals. I do not know why people drive cars to places and set them on fire; it seems a bizarre way of life, but people do it. Parks have declined significantly and we must do something about it—but how?

The first point to be made is that the task will be enormously expensive. Recently, it was decided to repair the iron railings of Vincent square—a wonderful square near here owned by Westminster school. The cost was in tens of thousands of pounds, if not in six figures. After much debate and in a joint venture between the school and Westminster city council a way was found to do it, but the cost was gigantic. To turn around 100 years of decline of the parks will take an awful lot of money.

I welcome the tone of the report which does not, as an old Labour report would have done, conclude that the Government must spend more money. We want somebody elsewhere to spend money. The report moves towards concluding that there is more than one way to skin this cat. Green spaces can cover their own costs through cafeteria franchises and charging for car parking and for all kinds of things—including, in some places, for access. The Royal Horticultural Society gardens at Wisley have not received a single penny from local or national government, but because of an intelligent admission policy of charging some people and giving the deserving and others free admission, and by making use of first-class cafeteria facilities—some good, some bad, some indifferent—and garden shops, the society has raised more than enough money to provide the best gardens that I have seen. One would expect nothing else.

PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that the parks have a value of about £5 billion per annum, and that tourist expenditure in parks is now about £300 million per annum. If decent parks, like the RHS garden at Wisley, were to be found throughout the country, that income could be maximised and plenty of ways found to regenerate parks that are now less attractive to the tourist. Finding a way to move money from one to the other would be an intelligent and useful thing to do. Many ways can be found to shift money towards them without necessarily seeking massive Government or local authority grants.

In that context, like the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, I pay tribute to the work of the Groundwork Trust. It makes the best possible use of volunteers, and it gets people out doing things to improve our parks, which is to be applauded.

I welcome most of the report's proposals. However, like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I found the Government's response deeply disappointing. The Government pay lip service to most of the Committee's proposals, but rarely do they say that they disagree with a report. They usually say, "Yes, we entirely endorse the report. We must find ways of doing it. We shall examine it, we shall look into it." I listened recently to a road safety announcement; it contained no proposals, but lots of words—"We will commission a report; we will set up a committee; we will look into; we will think about it." A journalist said to me today that it contained not one proposal to improve road safety. Having read the Government's response to this report, I cannot imagine that parks will get any better. It contains no proposals that might achieve any of the things called for in the report.

I am glad that the Under-Secretary is spending the afternoon listening to the debate; I know that she will think carefully about the matter. It is important that in this time of economic prosperity the Government should not take the easy option and shelter behind fine words, launches and reports. The Under-Secretary should tell us what the Government will do to turn round the decline in parks that hon. Members have described this afternoon. Our parks are in a disgraceful state, yet they are a huge national asset. It is time that the Government did something about it.

3.47 pm

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

I was a member of the Select Committee when it started its investigations; unfortunately, I am no longer a member. However, I remember that, when the Chairman announced that the Committee would be undertaking an investigation of parks, I was a little bemused because of my knowledge of the parks in my constituency. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke of the many fine parks in his constituency. Southampton, too, has many parks—indeed, I am sure that we have enjoyed each other's parks—but the tradition of parks in our part of the world is not shared by many other parts of the country.

Southampton has 660-odd hectares of parkland. Of that, 134 hectares forms Southampton common, which leads into the city centre. More recently—this will encourage those who believe that there are no new parks—another 197 hectares of greenways have been created. That is mainly the result of the city council's efforts to join together the green spaces next to the streams that run through the hilly areas of Southampton, and to give access to those greenways from the public parks in the city centre.

Southampton has a tradition of substantial parks. It also has a deep civic consciousness of how important those parks are to the city. Southampton common has existed as land in common ownership since early medieval times. It is interesting to reflect on the use of the common and the pride that local residents take in its status as a site of special scientific interest in the middle of the city. Southampton common is home to one of the few remaining colonies of the greater crested newt, which is the Ronseal of the amphibian world—it does exactly what it says it does, being larger than the average newt and having a crest. The fact that there is an SSSI in the middle of the city is a source of price to city dwellers, but the common is also used for many events, and has been since medieval times. Indeed, looking at the roster of events in Southampton parks over a three-month period, I see about 41 major events were held, including a big bug tour, a daisy dip fun day, a fair, a common conservation walk and a model car club fun day. A whole range of activities take place in the parks, which are used regularly by the city's residents.

An organisation called Southampton Parks and Commons Protection Society defends Southampton common with the tenacity of a lion defending her cubs. Some time ago, a substantial dispute took place about whether a post should be located inside the common, which would give the people who live in a house on the edge of the common access to their garage. Although one might regard that as a trivial point, the fact that city residents were prepared voluntarily to undertake activity in defence of parks and open spaces is good for the health and future of those parks.

A combination of civic pride, on-going public support, action by voluntary organisations to protect the parks and investment in parks are the ingredients for ensuring that parks in towns and cities remain healthy and vibrant. Recently, Southampton city council obtained a heritage lottery fund grant of £3 million to restore the central parks to their state in Victorian times. In Southampton, it is true to say that any politician who stood up in a public place and suggested that anything untoward should be done to a park would quickly disappear from the local political scene, because parks are an important part of Southampton's public life, and long may they remain so.

Mr. Bennett

It is rare for a politician to suggest that anything should be done to destroy a park; the problem is neglect. I listened with sympathy to what my hon. Friend said about Southampton parks. Indeed, Southampton seems to have done much better than most places, but then he reminded us that the central park needed lottery money for regeneration, which demonstrates that, even in Southampton, quiet neglect has done more damage than would be done by a council leader's suggestion that a park should be closed or abandoned.

Dr. Whitehead

That is a strong point. I was about to mention the other side of the coin, namely what happens when parks are not loved and cherished, money is not forthcoming for maintenance and the other ingredients are not present. The ambitious scheme to restore Southampton centre parks to their Victorian form has been made possible only by the grant. The city council tried hard, but several features of the Victorian period were impossible to replace.

I wish to move on to my experience of taking part in the inquiry, which radically changed my views about parks. Before proceeding, I should explain that my name is absent from the list of visitors in the annexe to the general report. I am not sure whether members of the Committee airbrushed my name out in their rage at my resignation, like the disappearance of Bukharin from pictures of the Soviet Central Committee after he fell out with Stalin. I can assure hon. Members that I was present and that I distinctly remember being there when our chairman took photographs, juxtaposing the best and the worst in parks. On the outside cover of the document I recognise a picture of Stockport's Burntwood park and the inside cover has a picture of its Hollywood park. One park was revived; the other remains in a very sad state.

The Committee presciently highlighted aspects of what we would all want for the future development of parks in the UK. It is extraordinary that we have no knowledge at a national level of exactly where parks are, what they do, who runs them, what condition they are in, and so forth. The difficulties encountered by the Committee in attempting to acquire information speak volumes about the national consciousness of the heritage of our parks. It is also worrying that no one speaks on behalf of parks to Government. They are too often regarded as open spaces in which things happen, but no one really knows much about them—perhaps they are the resort of old ladies and kids on skateboards. In most parks, nothing much of an organised nature takes place, which causes them to fade from public view—at least in relation to policy options.

Some time before the Select Committee visit, I read a report by Commedia entitled "Parklife", which pointed out how well used parks were, even though that often appeared not to be the case. Commedia counted people coming in and out of parks and found that, although use was overwhelmingly informal, it was astonishingly heavy by any standards. The idea that parks are empty spaces with grass that no one uses or cares for is mistaken. Unfortunately, that mistaken impression is often in the heads of those who consider what should be done with parks. Gaining a clearer picture at national level of exactly what happens in our parks would be a step forward. It is important to raise consciousness of the debate among our national policy makers.

I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the Select Committee's suggestion that an urban parks and green space agency could usefully formulate opinion on parks, but there are more positive aspects to the Government's response to the report, which offer some mitigation.

Another issue connected with parks is often neglected. I recall that the Committee took evidence from someone who had worked on the development of Central park in New York and he pointed out that a neglected park can spread blight around its boundaries and become a severe negative factor for an entire neighbourhood. Conversely, a vibrant park's influence spreads well beyond its boundaries. People want to live nearby, things happen in that park, people are drawn to it and the neighbourhood benefits from more than the park itself.

I was encouraged by the consideration given to the best value scheme in the Government's response to the Committee report. Having listened to the evidence put before the Committee and visited parks to discover their condition and how they are managed outside Southampton, I think that the compulsory competitive tendering regime, to which local government was subjected for such a long time, had at least a hand in the decline of our parks.

During a previous debate, I mentioned the, possibly apocryphal, story of the Barnet ducks. The local authority put its parks out to tender under the leisure management provisions of the CCT regime. Everything was measured for the tender, but in the winter after the parks came under the management of the organization that won the tender, the ducks on the pond died. The reason was that the park keeper had previously fed the ducks, but no one had measured the park keeper doing so and, therefore, the ducks were not fed after the contract had gone out to tender.

The best value scheme should bring together in a positive way several of the issues that I have mentioned. Some the performance indicators used in the scheme will be relevant to parks. Community plans, which local authorities will be required to draft under the best value regime, will undoubtedly take into account local authorities' proposals on parks and show how improvements can be monitored regularly as the regime develops.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman implies that CCT had a role in the decline in parks, but that is not stated in the report. Equally, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) went to some lengths to say that there was no evidence of that and that it was not the reality of the process. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has given an example of park keepers working out how long it takes to feed ducks. Is he suggesting that, under the best value regime, people will know how much it costs a local authority to employ someone to feed the ducks? How will ducks' lives be saved under the best value regime when they were not saved under CCT?

Dr. Whitehead

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what I have said. If everything is put out to tender on the basis of a document in a brown envelope and a job, such as the park keeper's informal feeding of the ducks, is not measured, the contractor that successfully bids for the tender will not do it.

A good park depends on many factors, including a partnership between the local authority and the local population. The authority has to do what is necessary to make the park work well, and local people have to have pride in it, playing a positive role, perhaps as friends of the park. All sorts of organisations come together to make parks vibrant. Several of those ingredients were effectively discouraged under CCT. Although I do not lay all the blame for the decline in our parks at the door of CCT, it had a hand in ensuring that people may have decided to put in ground cover rather than plant flowers because doing so was cheaper and easier, whatever the wishes of those who lived around and used the park may have been.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman is most generous to give way to me twice. Even if that were the case, why would it be different under best value? Best value also specifies what the contractor will do. If the specification is incorrect, the job will not be done. His point that under CCT the ducks were not fed and that under best value they will be is fundamentally flawed. What is the logic of that statement?

Dr. Whitehead

I am about to tell the hon. Gentleman the circumstances in which best value will be better. It is at least intimated in the Government's response to the Committee report. It is because one is not subject to a rigid system of measuring everything, putting it into a document, opening a brown envelope and then being stuck with that way of doing things for a number of years.

The point about best value is that a range of possible service options is considered. It is possible to put something out to tender; it is possible to develop a partnership between local authorities to run a service; it is possible to run a service in a partnership between the local authority and the voluntary sector, or between the local authority and the private sector; it is possible to develop a long-term partnership in any of those models so that the basis of the partnership and the judgment of what is the best value for that particular park is based on the best overall outcome, not on a single narrow definition of how a particular service can be run in pure accountancy terms. The best value regime, which encourages those partnerships, can develop and change the way a park service is maintained and developed over a period of time, in conjunction with local people and the development of the community plan.

That gives me considerable encouragement, but overall—certain parts of the country notwithstanding—our parks are still declining. That should be a proper concern of all hon. Members. On that point, I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). As we continue with the process of urbanisation, parks become more and more vital as green lungs. On the edge of our towns and cities, country parks become important as bridges between the city and the countryside surrounding it. We neglect our parks at our peril. The Committee has done sterling work, not least in drawing this to the attention of the House and the public, and I congratulate it.

4.8 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

I add my congratulations to all those who served on the Committee—half of whom seem to have gone on to greater and better things since producing the report—and in particular to the Chairman. I congratulate them not just because the report addresses an important subject and produces arresting evidence and conclusions, but on the felicity of its literary style. One is always encouraged by a report that starts with a quotation from Ruskin. The rest of the report did not lose in the comparison. It was a much better read than many Select Committee reports.

To continue the theme from Ruskin, one of the things that comes out of the pages of the report is the tribute to the idealism of many city fathers in the Victorian and Edwardian eras who felt both a sense of service and a self-confidence about the future of their towns and cities, of which the parks were such a great symbol. In many ways, the report is suffused with some of that spirit of idealism. Apart from that spirit which shone out of it, I was struck by the degree of suppressed anger at things that had gone wrong in too many country and urban parks. Most important of all is the report's sense of urgency. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) clearly stated that action is urgently required as the problem cannot go on without harm resulting. By contrast, he said that the Government's response to the report was disappointing. I am aware that, in this Chamber, we are not required to be as robust as we might be in the other Chamber, so I shall confine myself to describing the Government's response as inadequate, but I would use a lengthier and more robust description elsewhere.

It is important to put the report and the Government response in context. One of the most interesting points mady by the hon. Gentleman was his assertion that, despite a common background of problems, there is huge variation in the state of parks in different parts of the country. Indeed, that variation is represented on the cover of the report, which shows the stark difference between the best and the worst of our parks. That points to the conclusion that decline and neglect are not inevitable, whatever the system of local government funding and however local government performance is measured by national Government.

Broadly speaking, good local authorities will continue to provide good park services and bad local authorities will not. I hope that local authorities throughout the country will draw on that lesson. In our debate, hon. Members have spoken about good and bad things in parks in their constituencies. There are good and bad parks in my own constituency, but all could probably be better.

The general conclusion to be drawn from the report is that good local authorities provide better parks. Our discussion about the effect of best value has been interesting. I accept the assertion of the hon. Gentleman that the existence of CCT was not the primary cause of problems and that a change in the process created resistance from some local authorities. I am afraid that hon. Members who say that everything will be better under best value will be proved wrong.

Any transition will cause problems. Indeed, councillors in my constituency and elsewhere say that the great problem with best value is the bureaucracy that it creates. One councillor told me that one has a choice. Either one fills in all the forms or one provides the services, but there are not enough hours in the day to do both. That problem will affect park services and other vital local authority services if the best value regime continues. The hon. Gentleman was being polite when he said that he was not encouraged by the best value regime in that context. I was struck by the harsh criticism of English Heritage's performance. I hope that it will take that as a warning shot. The Select Committee will return to the subject later, but has identified serious problems.

Various hon. Members have taken us on tours of their local parks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made a powerful point about the problems caused by travellers in and around parks which will resonate with hon. Members around the country. To my surprise, I agreed with virtually every word of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). He identified the need for park keepers to stop damage to trees in parks and hoped that, because we all own them, we should all feel a sense of responsibility for them. Unfortunately, when everyone owns something, no one feels a responsibility for it, which is why capitalism works and socialism does not, but I shall not go any further down that route. I am sure that we all admired the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), both for the parks in his constituency and for the various London parks that he often visits at lunchtime every day. That is obviously why he keeps so fit, despite his evidently heavy lunching programme.

The report contained some shocking facts. It is unthinkable that we have no reliable figures on the number of parks in this country, estimates varying from 30,000 to 5,000. I note that, by the end of the reporting process, 5,000 seemed to have been accepted as the realistic figure. It is equally extraordinary that, despite the Select Committee's best efforts, there were no reliable figures on how much local authority expenditure on parks has changed over the years. Most noteworthy of all is the fact that the Committee itself was shocked by the evidence that it found. Indeed, that is more or less what the report says. That identifies the chronic and acute problems evident in so many parks. The Chairman of the Committee said that he was disappointed with the Government's response, so it would be useful if the Minister addressed in her reply the most disappointing aspects of the Government's response.

The first disappointing aspect is the lack of a proper review, which the Government have not so much rejected as brushed aside. I draw the Minister's attention to the successful royal parks review, which took place a few years ago. If I remember my history, I recall consulting people at the time. The Department was not keen on the review then, partly because it was wary of a recommendation for an agency structure. However, during the course of the review, the sheer weight of the evidence convinced the Department that a new regime was necessary—and it was subsequently implemented. The review was properly resourced and had a proper secretariat; it was genuinely independent of the Government, who listened to what was said. It produced an overwhelming case, which Ministers acknowledged, and they implemented many of the recommendations. Will the Minister acknowledge the force of my analogy between that review and the potential review of our urban and country parks?

Another disappointing element is the Government's delayed reaction to the Rogers report. Parks are only part—but, we would all agree, an important part—of his many recommendations for promoting urban revival across the country. The Government's delay in responding to that report has caused problems. I know that no White Paper will be produced until after the comprehensive spending review. That review is, of course, important, but the fact that the Government seem paralysed by it for months, sometimes years on end, cannot be good for governance. I hope that the Minister will deal with that too.

The Minister should also enlighten us about the provision of lottery money. It is clear from both the report and what hon. Members said that much of the good work done in parks in recent years has been funded by lottery money, but the Minister will be aware of the different ways in which lottery money is now distributed. Those have been fragmented in recent years by the Government's own acts. They wanted to set up new forms of lottery giving, and my fear is that such fragmentation will cause new cracks, into which the needs of parks will fall.

I know that the Minister's Department is not responsible for the lottery. That is a symptom of a wider problem that affects parks: they can look to her Department, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Local Government Association or the local authorities to take responsibility for them. All those bodies play a role, but it seems that none of them seems to feel that it has the prime responsibility for them. That calls to mind an analogy with trees in the parks. The Minister's presence suggests that her Department regards itself as principally responsible for preserving and enhancing our parks, so perhaps she should tell the Chamber whether she agrees that what I have described is a genuine and significant problem.

Local government is a vital player because local authorities have the hands-on, day-to-day responsibility for running parks. Can the Minister explain the LGA's role in that? The Committee resisted the temptation to propose new statutory duties for local authorities or statutory protection for parks and I am sure that that was right, because placing new central burdens on local authorities would be a move in the wrong direction. If we accept that point—as the Committee rightly did—we should also accept that central bodies, such as the LGA, should provide advice and help. Does the Minister consider that a legitimate role for the LGA, or should her Department fulfil that function?

Inevitably, many hon. Members have identified money as one solution to the problems. Parks are vulnerable when local authorities are, as they see it, under-resourced, because there is no statutory duty on them. Similarly, parks are vulnerable when there is no national voice for them, like the Arts Council or the Sports Council. It has already been said that the existence of matched funding for institutions such as museums means not only that those bodies can receive money from various sources, but that the temptation for local authorities to cut budgets in those areas is reduced, because they would lose the matched funds and entire institutions would disappear. Where should local authorities place parks in the hierarchy of their duties? It is clear, not least from today's debate, that well-run parks are as good and visible a symbol as there can be of a well-run local authority, so it is surprising that too many authorities seem to regard them as a relatively low priority.

That brings me to the Committee's central recommendation: the setting up of a new urban parks and green spaces agency. Many people's instinct, including mine, is to be wary of setting up another quango. I congratulate the Committee on the argument that it advanced for doing so and on the thoroughness of the appendix setting out how such a body would work. It is important not to leave those things hanging and to have a stab at saying what would actually happen. However, doing so gives rise to legitimate qualms in that the appendix suggests that the budget would be about £30 million to £50 million, which is a significant sum. When Select Committees advocate setting up a new quango, they should perhaps have a moral duty to recommend at least one other quango to be abolished in order to retain the balance in public life.

Whatever our views about the merits of creating a new agency, the matter deserves more analysis and argument than the Government have given in their response. It is clearly a serious suggestion based on evidence taken from a wide range of people. The rather bland and simple dismissal of the suggestion in the Government's response is regrettable, and I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter. The Government did not even promise a review. Perhaps the most powerful argument for the agency is that parks do not have a national voice, which puts them at a disadvantage. I am wary of the suggestion, but it should not be rejected out of hand, as it is in the Government's response.

The report is passionate and focused on genuine problems. In contrast, the Government's response is a classic piece of Sir Humphrey drafting: it drizzles indifference over the subject and tries to put a blanket over the suggestions. I hope that the Minster will give a fuller explanation, not least because, as the debate has made clear, parks have mattered to millions of people for decades and centuries. Many political reforms that cause enormous day-to-day controversy are fleeting and evanescent. If the Minister can put parks on a more stable footing, she will deserve thanks from millions of people for generations to come, and I hope that she will reassure us that her thoughts are moving in that direction.

4.26 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on having initiated the debate. It is extremely difficult for me to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to acknowledge those of my hon. Friends who are behind me. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not turn around very often.

I thank the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs for its thorough and thoughtful consideration of the wide range of evidence that it collected and for having produced a report that is so timely in relation to our objectives for parks and open spaces. I am pleased that we have debated the subject, because I share the views that hon. Members have expressed about the importance of parks and open spaces, as do my colleagues, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The debate gives me an opportunity to explain the Government's position.

Our position contrasts starkly with the record of the previous Government, who presided over the decline that the report has illuminated. I have some sympathy for the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Ashford (Mr. Green), who have been wrong-footed. Their protestations inevitably have a hollow ring, because for the long period during which the Conservative party could have introduced measures to protect or enhance parks and gardens, it did the reverse.

Mr. Gray

The Minister echoes what her colleagues say for almost any aspect of policy—the Conservative party is to blame; it is the natural party of government and has been in power for 75 or 80 per cent. of the time in the past century, which is correct. However, to say that all the nation's ills must be blamed on the Conservative party because it is the natural party of government seems to be an abdication of the Government's responsibilities. We want to hear, not an easy jab at the Conservative Government for allowing parks to decline, but clear and positive factual information about how her Government will correct that decline.

Ms Hughes

I said not that the Conservative party is the natural party of government, but quite the reverse. For various reasons, it happened to have control of central Government for the 18 years following 1979. In saying that his party cannot accept responsibility for what its Government did during that time to parks and gardens, the hon. Gentleman lays bare the dismissive attitude to such matters that the Conservatives displayed when they were in power.

By contrast, the Labour Government are committed to making our towns and cities attractive and vibrant places in which people can live and work. That has been a central theme developed by the Government and my Department for some time. We want to create more socially inclusive and economically competitive communities in our cities. We recognise, even if the Conservative party did not, that parks and open spaces improve the quality of life in our urban environment and will be important in bringing about the urban renaissance that we are determined to effect.

Enormous benefits can be gained from well designed and managed parks and open spaces. They are a vital recreational resource, as many hon. Members have said. Although the evidence might be insubstantial, we believe that parks can improve the health and social well-being of people and enhance their enjoyment of local environments. They make a valuable contribution to biodiversity in cities, and provide an important wildlife and educational resource for many children, especially in urban areas. The Government need no convincing that open spaces and parks play a vital role in enhancing the quality of people's lives, which is the remit of my Department.

The Environment Sub-Committee suggested that several parts of park provision and management should be improved, and hon. Members have touched on some of those during the debate. Our response to its report, which I do not accept was inadequate, contained proposals to deal with those recommendations.

The Sub-Committee expressed concern about the lack of adequate information on the quantity and quality of our parks and the way in which they are used. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and agree with him that the fact that no data were available is shocking, and is testimony to the previous Government's lack of concern. Unlike us, they did not even want to know where or in what state the parks were, or how many of them there were. Information of good quality is a foundation without which nothing can be done to improve parks, and is essential to inform other decisions that we shall make as a Government to achieve the urban renaissance.

That is why we started to fill the information deficit outlined in the report. My Department, the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage are jointly funding the needs assessment survey of publicly owned parks, which I hope will remedy our lack of knowledge about their condition and use. I hope that it will also help to identify aspects of park management on which we might need to do further research. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), we expect the research to be collected by the end of April. The early responses are encouraging: we have already received more than 200 from local authorities about the parks and their condition, and we hope to have a substantial database by the end of next month.

Mr. Bennett

I was going to press the Minister on when we would get that information and I am pleased that that is now on the record. I hope that she will urge local authorities to produce rather more accurate information than that which they gave the Committee. Many of them were uncertain about that information—yet they have been sending back figures to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for years and years, on the basis of the figures that they had put in for parks the preceding year. I hope that she insists that they check how much park area they have and are maintaining.

Ms Hughes

Information is useful only to the extent that it is accurate. We are pressing local authorities to check before telling us what parks they have and what state they are in. I am therefore confident that we will get a much clearer picture.

Secondly, the Sub-Committee felt that there was a need to redefine best value in park services. We have had considerable debate about the potential role of best value in improving parks and park services. The Sub-Committee recommended that local authorities develop masterplans for parks and open spaces, setting out clearly how they would be managed. Under best value, local authorities will be encouraged to develop local cultural strategies in which they can express their cultural vision and priorities, taking into account the needs of local communities. We expect those strategies to cover parks and open spaces and will check that they do.

I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish who thinks that there is a lack of clear information about best value; how it works is to him a fuzzy concept. Most local authorities would probably not share that view. If they have a complaint about best value, it is that there is too much for them to do in establishing it. It is nearly 1 April, when best value comes into formal operation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test alluded to the partnership aspect of best value, but the performance element of best value will enable better assessment of how local authorities manage and maintain their parks. That drive for performance is the foundation of best value, which, unlike CCT, will deliver in relation to services in general, and parks in particular, because it will place much greater priority on improving the quality of services provided.

The performance indicators that we have produced alongside the best value regime will be reviewed each year and we will look closely at how effectively they achieve that continual drive in performance. In our response to the Sub-Committee's report, we gave a commitment to consider, with other interested groups, whether the next round of performance indicators should be more specific about parks. If the current indicators are not working as well as they might, we will revise them. We believe that best value will provide local authorities with the opportunity to make specific improvements across the services they provide, including parks and open space provision.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of funding. The Sub-Committee advised that the funding of park services has declined as a result of resources having been spread very thinly. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that that was largely a consequence of the previous Government's CCT regime. It is interesting that both my hon. Friends were, like me, council leaders and had first-hand experience of operating CCT. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that it was a consequence of the process itself. Under the previous Government's regime, there is no doubt that in its drive to keep down costs, and in its narrow interpretation of value for money, CCT contributed to a dramatic decline, not only in funding, but in the quality of staffing and maintenance of our parks. We have much lost ground to make up.

I mentioned the improvements that I expect best value to make in the quality of parks management and in helping to reverse some of those consequences. I confirm that we are also reviewing expenditure on parks and environmental services as part of the current spending review, about which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked. We are pursuing the issue and we shall announce the outcome of the review later in the year. In addition, we have committed extra capital funds for park improvements through the two major lottery progammes to which hon. Members have referred.

Net expenditure by local authorities on parks is beginning to rise. The increase is slow, but expenditure rose to £513 million in 1995–96 and to £538 million in 1997–98—the last year for which we have figures. The money put into parks does not come only from the revenue support grants given by the Government to local authorities, or from the annual capital guidelines, which include an element relating to parks and environmental services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside said, other investment is being made where environmental improvement can be delivered for parks.

Such funds can come from the single regeneration budget, European funding and from the Groundwork Trust. I have visited a number of its projects throughout the country and seen the work being done to revitalise parks. Community forests are another valuable type of scheme: I launched a community forest recently in the north-west and saw the enormous impact that such projects can have on park facilities. The environmental task force of the new deal is also channelling Government money into projects with an environmental impact, which often involve work in parks. The environmental action fund, which supports the green flag award, is another source of investment. Indeed, the Government are discussing ways in which we can better promote and develop that award. The Government are, therefore, supporting local authorities in refurbishing their parks through a wide range of initiatives and sources of targeted funding as well as through mainstream revenue support grant funding.

Mr. Green

At the start of that list of funding, the Under-Secretary made an interesting statement. She said that the Government have added to capital spending through lottery funding. Can I confirm that she has destroyed the myth that lottery grants are independent? Are we to take it that lottery money is now central Government funding? That would be an interesting constitutional development.

Ms Hughes

The hon. Gentleman cannot see the wood for the trees. I confirm what he well knows: lottery organisations allocate money independently of the Government and extra capital funding has passed through that mechanism into parks—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire wish to intervene?

Mr. Gray

I was speaking to myself, but as the Under-Secretary has so kindly given way, I shall speak aloud. The fact that money has been invested from lottery funds has nothing to do with the Government. The only Government who have anything to do with that are the previous Government, who invented the lottery.

Ms Hughes

The hon. Gentlemen seem unable to grasp the point. Money is invested through lottery funding as well as through a wide variety of Government mechanisms providing targeted funding for particular areas. Taken in the round—I could add in money invested by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on tourism—the amount going into refurbishment of parks is much greater than the figure often considered, which is the revenue support grant to individual local authorities.

The report recommended that a number of other aspects of parks management be addressed. One of the most important recommendations was the establishment of a national parks and green spaces agency. A new agency is one way to tackle the more fundamental issue of how we ensure that nationally and locally we keep our eye on the ball. We need to know what is happening to parks. We cannot allow the situation of the past 18 years to continue, when no one had their eye on the ball.

Local authorities, working in partnership with their local communities, are best placed to decide how to deliver local economic, educational, health and environmental services. In that context, the responsibility for making decisions about parks and open spaces should remain with local authorities. It would not be right for such decisions to be in the hands of a new quango, as the hon. Member for Ashford called it, that is not locally elected and therefore not locally accountable. We would be concerned about the possible overlap between the activities of the agency and the actions and decisions that are rightly matters for local authorities. I think local authorities woud agree. It is one reason why we are not persuaded that a new agency would be the best way to tackle the Committee's concerns.

Mr. Bennett

Surely that argument would apply to the Sports Council, the Arts Council and similar bodies. We were suggesting not that parks should be taken away from local authorities, but that there should be support for local authorities to get across the messages of best practice, to help with training and to campaign for parks. That is not taking management responsibilities away from local authorities. Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the Countryside Commission did a huge job in getting country parks established, even though the work was carried out by local authorities?

Ms Hughes

In a sense, I can answer yes to part of my hon. Friend's question. We are giving careful consideration to the Committee's arguments for a champion for parks. Had the Committee's report argued for that, without prescribing the method of achieving it, the Government might have been more enthusiastic.

Mr. Bennett

That is the usual device of Ministers. If a Select Committee puts forward a vague idea, it is attacked for not giving the detail. It would be great to hear my hon. Friend announce that she is considering a proposal to do the same thing. We are not saying that we have devised the right way to proceed, but at least we took the trouble to include some detail for discussion. If she wants to produce a different way of achieving the same thing, the Committee would not be too upset. What we want is someone to champion parks effectively.

Ms Hughes

I agree with some of the Committee's arguments about the need to have a champion for parks, because there should be a mechanism to focus on what is happening in parks, but I do not think that my hon. Friend has proposed the best mechanism for that. He said that the Committee had to be specific in the report or the proposal would have been put to one side. The report went into great detail: it outlined what the agency would do, and costed it to the tune of between £30 million and £50 million. The Committee proposed a specific solution to the issues that the report raised. We are not convinced that that is the best or only mechanism by which to achieve the broader objectives with which we agree.

Hon. Members should appreciate that several other bodies might be able to take on the role described by my hon. Friend. Local authorities cannot be airbrushed—the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test—from the equation. We wish to discuss the Committee's proposals with the Local Government Association, English Heritage, the Countryside Agency, the Audit Commission and several other interested bodies.

I assure my hon. Friend of our commitment to the issue. That brings me to one of the most important points, which was made tangentially in the report and, more clearly, in the debate: the importance of parks and open spaces to regeneration. My hon. Friends the Members for Riverside and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) spoke clearly about the importance of parks and open spaces for wider regeneration objectives, particularly in relation to their cities, but also in relation to other towns. That is an essential Government objective. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside that recognition of the importance of parks and open spaces is belated. However, the Government made regeneration a primary objective as soon as they had the opportunity to do so. The Rogers report made the link between parks and open spaces and regeneration, and our work in the urban White Paper will build on that. Those points have been well made and are congruent with our vision in the White Paper.

The White Paper will set out our vision for achieving more inclusive, sustainable communities. It will consider a wide range of issues, including the centrality of parks, and show how those cross-cutting issues relate to each other. In preparing the White Paper, we have taken the initiative to bring people together to consider specifically what we call management of the public realm. Through our focus on that concept and on the quality of the fabric of the urban environment, including the green elements in our environment, we will spell out the importance of parks and open spaces in towns.

Mr. Brake

On the Government's commitment to parks and open spaces, the Under-Secretary said earlier that information is the foundation. I agree with her on that, and the parks database is very welcome. However, the Government will also need to analyse the content of the database and act on the results of that analysis. Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking to provide solutions to the problems identified by the parks database?

Ms Hughes

That is a rather redundant question. We are collecting a database as an essential prerequisite to understanding where our parks stand, what state they are in and what has happened to them. We will use that information as the basis of discussions with interested parties, including local authorities and the Local Government Association, on how the results of the survey should be taken further. The urban White Paper is one of the mechanisms through which we will engage in that debate.

Through the White Paper, we are carefully considering ways to raise the profile of and provide information about our parks and open spaces; to develop and disseminate good practice in the design, management and care of parks and open spaces, and promote higher quality standards; and to encourage the development of the skills needed to improve the management of our parks and their safety and cleanliness—an important matter that some hon. Members mentioned. We are considering ways to develop more effective partnerships that are capable of identifying and co-ordinating new sources of funding for parks and open spaces, and new ways of managing them that could involve local people, as some hon. Members suggested. We are considering also how to promote the effective implementation of best value, to help local authorities begin to deal with some of the adverse effects of CCT, and to encourage the active involvement of local communities and businesses in caring for and championing the cause of local parks and open spaces.

That is not an exhaustive list, but I assure the Committee that we are considering it actively. We are doing so not because the Select Committee told us to, but because it is part and parcel of our understanding of the wide range of issues that are central to achieving sustainable regeneration in many of our towns and cities. We certainly did not need to be prompted to say that parks and open spaces are central to that agenda. When the White Paper is published, we shall establish constructive dialogue with other Departments and with a wide range of interested parties.

Mr. Gray

I have been listening carefully to the Under-Secretary's proposals for making parks better places. She spoke of filling the information deficit and of promoting local cultural strategies; she is going to drive through performance on the basis of best value; she is going to review expenditure; she is going to think about the urban White Paper; she is going to engage in dialogue with various people. Does she really think that words and aspirations such as those are a reasonable substitute for action called for in the Select Committee report?

Ms Hughes

I have talked about a series of actions.

Mr. Gray

Like what? The lottery?

Ms Hughes

Perhaps, because of the previous Government's record, the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise an action when he sees one.

I have outlined our strong commitment to parks and open spaces. We are undertaking a range of activities and measures, which we shall pursue further. We shall put our commitment into practice. As I said, we do not need to be told about the importance of parks and open spaces. Many of us represent constituencies in major cities that have an industrial past. We can see for ourselves what parks used to be like, and what they could be like, and what they should be for our communities. The Government recognised that of their own volition. It is part and parcel of our approach to regeneration—a central theme, not only in the White Paper but in all the regeneration activities that we are undertaking.

I hope that I have been able to reassure at least those hon. Members who have understood what I said that we have taken the Select Committee's report seriously. We have considered all its recommendations and have responded constructively to the vast majority of them. Our work is not finished; the White Paper will take it forward with several further large strides. I thank the Committee for its contribution to the debate, and for the part that it has played in championing and highlighting the importance of parks and open spaces, particularly those in our towns and cities.

4.59 pm

Mr. Bennett

With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is the custom that the Chairman of the Select Committee is allowed to say a few words at the close of the debate.

I thank the Under-Secretary for her response and all those who participated in this useful debate. I stress that Select Committees have a function to undertake reports, but the process must be on-going. I would not want people to feel that we had finished. I hope that the Under-Secretary will understand that we shall consider returning to the issue, possibly through the White Paper on urban regeneration.

I welcome the database and the fact that it will be in place quickly. I hope that there will be a relationship between the database and local authority resources. I do not disagree with the Under-Secretary's view that CCT did much damage. The money saved on the maintenance of one bit of park was not spent on the other parts. That use of money was most devastating, although much time and effort were wasted on it. I shall judge best value by how soon my constituents can look at a park, such as North Reddish park, say how much money Stockport council is spending on it and compare it with sums spent elsewhere.

I hope that we can have a dialogue with the agency so that we can quickly get the urgently needed champion for parks. When considering the way forward, I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary talk about the management of the public realm, which is fundamental.

Statues, including those in tribute to people who had fought on behalf of others, were provided by public subscription in previous centuries. It would be nice to think that there might be a statue to the Under-Secretary in Longford or Gorse park, reminding everybody that she pushed the Government into taking urban parks seriously again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am pleased to have allowed the debate to end consensually and pleasantly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock.